Personally, I believe that however smart such a decision would be, they won't do it. No, not because they're "enemies", but rather, if the companies did merge, it would create a lot of redundant workers. Or rather, make a lot of workers' jobs redundant and, therefore, unneccesary expenses.

I think a merger would probably put a lot of people out of jobs and create a more powerful mindset of, "OH NOES! MONOPOLY!! KILL IT BEFORE IT GETS TOO BIG!" But that has already come to pass with MS, I guess.

Originally Posted by jazzleIt seems unlikely to me.
I think it would be interesting to hear both side's official arguments why they would and wouldn't do it.

Don't know what the official arguments would be, but the reason is money: there's more money to be made from selling two OSs than from selling one. To make it worthwhile the WinOSX or whatever it will be called should cost as much as Vista+OSX and I'm not sure many people could afford that.

I didn't even read the article. The intro spooked me enough!
I love being part of the apple-minority. I don't miss anything about Windows so I don't see how any part of Windows could improve anything about OS X.

But I guess I should just shut up and reat the article already.. maybe at work tomorrow.

I think there are two issues here. The first is the ethos which for apple is basically if you have to think about how to do something its not easy enough. The second is the UI and other gubbins. I agree the first should be common bettween the two OS's. However I do not belive the second should be there should be choice and at the moment I prefer the OSX way of doing things but if MS get windows working nicely thier way is just as valid.

On another point you seem to go on about how windows has to run drivers and processes to deal with USB devices. I belive OSX has to do exactly the same thing and handles things like devices being yanked out alot more gratiously than windows. Do not confuse bad programming with the necessity of backwards compatibiltiy.

Can I also say your comment about how cpu power is making code efficiency be "no longer required" is exactly how we get into messes where you need a massive GFX card 15GB and a 1.5Ghz CPU just to RUN THE OS! Let alone get anything done. Is this a situation we should be in?

To me whats more likely then a merger is MS buying Apple if they could sort the legalities of it out. Lets be honest the whole Macs are faster then PC's etc argument is pretty redundant now that there using Intel CPU's and you can easily compare the two.
I mean if you can get XP on a Mac i'm sure it wont be long before MAC OS is on a PC assuming drivers for hard ware comes out and there is greater software support in general.
Personally I think Apple have made a mistake using Intel CPUs because their machines look very underpowered compared to a PC of similar price Apples main attraction over a PC is design and to the hardcore fan software.

Interesting idea, but I think radziecki (welcome to Bit, btw) said everything that needs to be said. We only see change when there's competition, and in theory this applies to pricing too (of course, Microsoft is far too egotistical to see this). If ATI and nVidia merged, we'd either stay with the x17900GTXOCPro eternally or have each new generation that roughly doubles performance also roughly double in price.

Sure, I'd love the best of both worlds, but I don't want a merger either.

Originally Posted by LovahI didn't even read the article. The intro spooked me enough!
I love being part of the apple-minority. I don't miss anything about Windows so I don't see how any part of Windows could improve anything about OS X.

L

i read the article, but i'm going to be honest. i was a PC user all my life until this past october, and in no way do i ever wish to go back/use a windows machine. no ****

Quote:

Originally Posted by neocleousTo me whats more likely then a merger is MS buying Apple if they could sort the legalities of it out. Lets be honest the whole Macs are faster then PC's etc argument is pretty redundant now that there using Intel CPU's and you can easily compare the two.
I mean if you can get XP on a Mac i'm sure it wont be long before MAC OS is on a PC assuming drivers for hard ware comes out and there is greater software support in general.
Personally I think Apple have made a mistake using Intel CPUs because their machines look very underpowered compared to a PC of similar price Apples main attraction over a PC is design and to the hardcore fan software.

i'm pretty sure we've came to the conclusion that an equally spec'd computer with the same components as a macbook pro (for example) will be quite comparable in price.

oh, and about the article, i dont see a merging coming, but i think the next gen equipment/os (probably after vista) will defiinitely change some things.

If you're happy to throw processor cycles and memory away in the name of compatability, then we really ought to be talking about 100% virtualised operating systems; In theory, completely stable, and almost attack-proof. The thing is, that in theory, they also lead to a destabilisation of existing software monopolies...

On the idea of a merger: That's nonsense, frankly. Monopoly concerns aside, Apple and Microsoft make two different products for two different markets. It's like the difference between a Dremel and a table saw: Although they're both cutting tools, you're not going to cut cleanly through a 3-inch-thick plank with a Dremel, nor are you going to do a good job of engraving with a table saw.

While these two companies are fumbling around in the dark to try and imitate what the other side perfected long ago, technology continues to increase at a rapid rate. CPU speed is increasing tremendously, and HDDs are now capable of perpendicular storage (increasing both size and speed). We are moving towards an era where two gigabytes of RAM will be mainstream. That's plenty of RAM for multiple, more specific drivers, and plenty of speed to support a database file structure. Code efficiency is no longer such a requirement due to sheer horsepower, and can finally take a back seat to user efficiency.

While i'm all for more resources in the mainstream too, i'm still a firm believer that bloated code has no place in the computing landscape. When i make the step to add more to my system - more memory, more storage, more speed - i don't want it to be with more overhead. Hell, just keep adding that overhead and what happens? That shiny new video card, or extra gig of ram just slowed your system down... Things need to be more efficient, not just more powerful.

hmm... let's combine the two leading OS's into one piece. no competition, no reason to improve or fix what's broken.

there's a reason market domination is bad for the consumer, it drives up prices, and reduces quality.

competition = GOOD.

As if alternative OSes is competition enough for Microsoft. But maybe Apple can't cater to the customize this DIY market. If you like to swap processors, get Windows.

But if Apple did merge with MS, or even just made a joint operating software that had the technology of OS X, but the expandibility of Windows, then don't you basically have souped up Windows (which is essentially Vista)?

Who else would cater to grandma who just wants a Mac mini to see her photo slideshows or the creative Mac professional who needs to pay onsite service to install RAM?

I think the directions both are going are good. Windows definetly needs some improving, but XP is pretty damn awesome for what it can handle.

As for Macs, they do fine themselves. Apple's got their own little marketshare, and that's been enough to keep them going for 30 years. And as if Mac fanboys are prepared to ditch their favourite computer because of no expandibility, tight control, and exploding batteries.

Hmm, so the ultimate OS would then be one that is stable, fast, secure, has a mounted file systems (and allows virtual links) supports the full range of hardware and has good automatic detection for it.

Did I hear anyone say Linux? SUSE/(K)Ubuntu/Fedora Core/Mandriva all conform to those categories and they're free.

Also what's this advocation of non-optimised code? That's a frankly moronic idea. A 500bhp engine doesn't guarantee a fast car. It's only if the car can put that power on the road that it becomes fast. I don't want to spend good money on a blisteringly quick pc to find that the new M$ OS uses 75% of the resources because of lazy coding.

Originally Posted by dliberateHmm, so the ultimate OS would then be one that is stable, fast, secure, has a mounted file systems (and allows virtual links) supports the full range of hardware and has good automatic detection for it.

Did I hear anyone say Linux? SUSE/(K)Ubuntu/Fedora Core/Mandriva all conform to those categories and they're free.

Also what's this advocation of non-optimised code? That's a frankly moronic idea. A 500bhp engine doesn't guarantee a fast car. It's only if the car can put that power on the road that it becomes fast. I don't want to spend good money on a blisteringly quick pc to find that the new M$ OS uses 75% of the resources because of lazy coding.

You missed one, Dliberate. Easy to install and use. I agree, Linux is superior, IF you can get it to run. I'm on my third distro and I am still banging my head against that particular brick wall ( :( ). Ease of use for non-geeks is the big stumbling block for widespread linux acceptance. If someone can release a distro that just works, period, then they will have a much bigger impact on MS market share than anything Apple has yet released.

Originally Posted by dliberateHmm, so the ultimate OS would then be one that is stable, fast, secure, has a mounted file systems (and allows virtual links) supports the full range of hardware and has good automatic detection for it.

Did I hear anyone say Linux? SUSE/(K)Ubuntu/Fedora Core/Mandriva all conform to those categories and they're free.

Also what's this advocation of non-optimised code? That's a frankly moronic idea. A 500bhp engine doesn't guarantee a fast car. It's only if the car can put that power on the road that it becomes fast. I don't want to spend good money on a blisteringly quick pc to find that the new M$ OS uses 75% of the resources because of lazy coding.

All your criterion are all filled by OSX. Its UNIX so its like linux but with one change: Its workes really easily. Its mindnumbingly easy to do things.

@Cthippo: Thanks very much for the welcome! - may I ask which distros you've tried? I've had a few (minor) problems with hardware on some of them but I've never encountered any with Kubuntu or Ubuntu (Breezy onwards). Also, I think those two distro are probably the easiest ones to use. They come pre-installed with the majority of the things people need and VLC media player is availble for both so the codec problem goes away (it has inbuilt support).

@Lynx: I agree that OSX is much more intuitive but I'm pretty sure it doesn't run on any hardware you like without some sort of hack - as far as I'm aware I couldn't just install Tiger on my homebuilt PC. With Linux you can. Hell, you can install Linux on pretty much anything: PC, Mac, Xbox, PDAs, Mobile Phones... My only real gripes with it are 1) No Direct3d equivalent - only OpenGL games will run natively. 2) No Photoshop. Emulation is possible, but slower and a lot of hassle. OSX solves problem 2, problem 1 requires XP... sadly.